Governing policy evaluation? Towards a new typology

Abstract

As policy evaluation matures, thoughts are turning to its governance. However, few scholars have combined insights from the evaluation and governance literatures to shed new light on this matter. In order to address this important gap, this article develops a new typology of ways to comprehend and perhaps ultimately govern ex-post policy evaluation activities. The article then explores its validity in the context of climate policy evaluation activities, a vibrant policy area in which the demand for and practices of evaluation have grown fast, particularly in Europe. The analysis reveals that the typology usefully guides new thinking, but also highlights important gaps in our empirical knowledge of the various modes of governing policy evaluation. The article identifies a need for a new research agenda that simultaneously develops a fuller understanding of these evaluation practices and the options for governing them.

Policy Monitoring in the EU: The Impact of Institutions, Implementation, and Quality

“…14 Fourth, the availability of commonly agreed methodologies affects policy monitoring quality in the EEA's view. "À la carte" standards and methods, as Schoenefeld and Jordan (2017) have put it, are generally unable to generate consistent data; the EEA staff members stressed the existence of considerable methodological guidance, albeit accessing and using these documents can sometimes challenge the member states. 15…”

“…In the area of climate change policy, scholars have highlighted the need for policy monitoring in order to ensure effectiveness and transparency (e.g., Aldy 2018), but emerging studies have also unpacked some of the challenges that emerge in policy monitoring practice-many of them, such as variations in data quality or power struggles between policy monitoring actors, often being linked to politics and institutions (Niederberger and Kimble 2011;Schoenefeld and Jordan 2017;Schoenefeld et al 2018). More conceptual analyses have explored the extent to which policy monitoring includes (or should include) processes of data collection and/or data analysis (see Schoenefeld and Rayner 2019).…”

“…More conceptual analyses have explored the extent to which policy monitoring includes (or should include) processes of data collection and/or data analysis (see Schoenefeld and Rayner 2019). Today, policy monitoring is often conducted within-but increasingly also beyond-nation states in order to achieve international/supranational goals, such as enforcing international agreements (see Schoenefeld and Jordan 2017) or ensuring the implementation of EU policies (Tosun 2012;Verdun and Zeitlin 2018).…”

Culturally Responsive Indigenous Evaluation and Tribal Governments: Understanding the Relationship

“…Bowman (), demonstrated the lack of capacity of non‐Indian funding agencies to meet the legal, cultural, and contextual requirements of Tribal governments when conducting “multijurisdictional” research and evaluation studies. Even the synthesis of the literature by governance evaluation “experts” (Schoenfeld & Jordan, ) omits sovereign Indigenous governments despite their recognition by over 144 countries that signed the UNDRIP (United Nations, ). Combining culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) and sovereignty issues will begin to address the lack of attention to this area.…”

“…Indigenous evaluation was not seen in the literature until the 1960s, mainly regarding public health evaluations (Hogan, ). The current evaluation practitioners or the “founding fathers” or “pioneers” in evaluation (Dobkin Hall, ; Hogan, ; Williams, , p. 7), have provided models (Stufflebeam, ) that synthesize evaluation; these are further categorized in an evaluation theory tree of development demonstrating how the field has matured or evolved over the years (Alkin, , ; Cardin & Alkin, ), but few include Indigenous authors let alone Tribal government considerations for evaluation (Schoenfeld & Jordan, ). The last few years has begun to illustrate a wider representation of Indigenous voices within the broader field of academia including data sovereignty and Tribal protections and governance in Tribal and non‐Tribal research and evaluation initiatives (Bowman, , , ; NCAI, ; NCAI and MSU, ; University of Arizona, ).…”